Title
Supreme Court
Ridon vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 252396
Decision Date
Dec 6, 2023
Angelito Ridon was convicted of illegal possession of firearms, but the Supreme Court acquitted him, finding the warrantless search unjustifiable as there was no lawful arrest prior to it.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 252396)

Facts and Incident Description

On August 2, 2013, at around 3:30 a.m., while patrolling Macopa Street in Barangay Comembo, Makati City, police officers observed Angelito riding a motorcycle. He was flagged for entering a one-way street, which is a traffic violation. Angelito did not stop but instead fled by making a U-turn. Police and the Barangay watchman pursued and cornered him on Lanzones Street. Upon stopping, Angelito reportedly fell off his motorcycle and appeared to reach for something at his side, prompting Bantay Bayan Buesa to grab him. Police officers drew their guns and ordered him not to move. A frisk was conducted, and a .38 caliber revolver without a serial number loaded with six live bullets was recovered. Angelito was then arrested, informed of his rights, and taken to the police precinct for booking.

Petitioner's Defense and Corroboration

Angelito denied possession of the firearm and claimed he saw the gun for the first time at the police station. He stated that he was on his way to buy balut when he was abruptly stopped and physically assaulted by police officers. His live-in partner, Olive D. Sabile, corroborated his narrative, attesting to alleged police extortion attempts demanding money in exchange for his release. Neither filed a formal complaint due to fear and lack of knowledge on legal processes, but Angelito provided an affidavit to his counsel alleging extortion.

Regional Trial Court Decision

The RTC convicted Angelito of illegal possession of firearms beyond reasonable doubt, citing the credible, consistent testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses. The RTC emphasized that the officers saw Angelito attempting to discard the firearm when cornered, justifying his possession without a license. His flight from police was viewed as indicative of guilt and intent to conceal. The court dismissed Angelito’s defense regarding evidence planting and extortion for lack of supporting proof. He was sentenced to prision mayor in its medium period, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The CA affirmed the RTC’s conviction but modified the penalty to reflect the fact that the firearm was loaded. It endorsed the warrantless search as a lawful incident of arrest, reasoning that Angelito’s failure to respect the police order to stop, coupled with his attempt to draw a weapon, constituted probable cause for a valid in flagrante delicto arrest. The CA highlighted that possession of a firearm without a license is a malum prohibitum offense punishable under a special law, supporting lawful warrantless arrest and search. The CA rejected the petitioner’s argument on the absence of a traffic violation basis for valid arrest and search.

Issues Raised by the Petitioner

Angelito contended that there was no valid in flagrante delicto arrest to justify the warrantless search, as the police cornered and searched him without any criminal offense observed prior to arrest. He argued the firearm was found during an illegal search and seizure and thus inadmissible under the exclusionary rule. Petitioner stressed that no law or ordinance was violated warranting immediate arrest, and the police officers did not personally see the firearm before the frisk.

Government’s Position

The People, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, urged dismissal of the petition on factual grounds. They maintained that Angelito’s attempt to flee and alleged motion to draw a gun during pursuit provided probable cause for in flagrante delicto arrest and justified the warrantless search. They referenced consistent police testimonies affirming Angelito’s dangerous conduct that necessitated disarming for officer safety.

Supreme Court’s Ruling: Granting the Petition

The Supreme Court found the petition meritorious and reversed the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the RTC, acquitting Angelito. The Court emphasized that under the 1987 Constitution, searches and seizures must generally be conducted with a warrant based on probable cause, subject to limited exceptions. The warrantless search must be incidental to a lawful arrest, and such an arrest must precede the search.

Legal Standards on Warrantless Search Incident to Arrest

The Court elaborated that a search incidental to lawful arrest is valid only when: (a) there is a lawful arrest; (b) the search is subsequently made without a warrant; (c) it is limited to the person of the accused and immediate vicinity; and (d) conducted at the place of the arrest. The arrest must be lawful and not used as a pretext.

Lawful In Flagrante Delicto Arrest Requisites

In flagrante delicto arrest without a warrant is valid if the person commits, is actually committing, or attempts to commit a crime in the arresting officer’s presence or view. The person’s overt act must indicate the commission or attempted commission of a crime.

Application to the Case Facts

The Court found that the police did not see the firearm on Angelito before the search and arrest. The attempt to flee and the supposed action of “drawing something” were insufficient as overt acts justifying in flagrante delicto arrest. The inconsistent testimonies, including that the officers did not see a firearm prior to the frisk, undermined the basis for lawful arrest. The search thus preceded the arrest, reversing the legal order.

Distinction from Precedents Cited by the CA and People

The Court distinguished People v. Abriol, where a valid arrest and search occurred following a shooting incident and the police’s knowledge the accused was armed. In Angelito’s case, no shooting or overt criminal act was observed, and the officers only relied on flight from a traffic infraction and an ambiguous motion. Therefore, Abriol’s precedent did not apply.

Invalidity of Warrantless Search Based on Traffic Violation Alone

The Court underscored that violation of traffic rules punishable by fines and penalizations other than imp

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.

About Privacy Terms